9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.3 to press the recovery certificate No.197 dated 13.08.2012 (Annexure No.16)." 3. Earlier the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition No.544 of 2013, which was found to be defective as the order of the District Magistrate dated 10.07.2009 was not challenged by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate, if he is so advised. 4. In this fresh writ petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 10.07.2009 withdrawing the exemption of entertainment tax granted on 8.1.2001 and availed in full by the petitioner from the year 2004 to 2009, considering the fact that the petitioner has been asked to deposit and the recovery has been initiated by the impugned order for Rs.5,71,35,671/-, and that the filing of appeal will entail predeposit of 50% of the amount, we entertained the writ petition and directed the Standing Counsel to produce the original record of the case. 5. Brief facts given rise to this writ petition are that in pursuance to exemption granted by the State Government vide Government Order dated 11.8.2000 to the new cinema halls for a period of five ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Addl. District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) dated 6.1.2001 and the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 7.1.2001 to the Forensic Laboratory, U.P. and obtained answers on queries made by him in respect of overwriting on the dates on the documents (report of the Revenue Inspector, Kol, with forwarding note of Sub Divisional Magistrate). The Forensic Laboratory, U.P. by its report dated 23.09.2009 forwarded its opinion that the dates pointed out at Q-1, Q-3, Q-4 and Q-5 are overwritten. 9. With this report the Asstt. Commissioner initiated proceedings against the petitioner and on which the District Magistrate, Aligarh sent a notice to the petitioner on 6th June, 2009 to show cause as to why the entire amount of entertainment tax be not withdrawn as the order dated 8.1.2001 of District Magistrate was obtained by playing fraud in which the report of the Revenue Inspector and the Sub Divisional Magistrate were backdated from 17.1.2001, to 7.1.2001 for obtaining exemption. 10. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and denied that he had any access to the records or that the report has been backdated. He denied of any manipulation in the dates in the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertainment Tax Commissioner did not explain as to how the Executive Engineer, Prantiya Khand, Public Works Department could have sanctioned building plan on 4.1.2001 and that the District Magistrate gave permission on 8.1.2001, if the reports were allegedly obtained on 17.1.2001 and were backdated to 7.1.2001. 14. There was no allegations against the Executive Engineer, PWD and the District Magistrate of having backdated their sanction and permission. He submits that if there were any such fault, action should have been taken against the petitioner, within reasonable time. The respondents should not have waited for 8 years after the exemption was allowed and the petitioner availed the entire exemption. 15. Learned Standing Counsel submits that as soon as the manipulation of the documents were noticed, the Astt. Entertainment Tax Commissioner sent records to the forensic laboratory and after he was satisfied that the site was inspected on 17.1.2001, which was later than the permission, given by the District Magistrate, the show cause notice was given to which the petitioner did not submit satisfactory explanation. The exemption was taken by playing fraud and thus entire amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of overwriting on the date of the report of the Revenue Inspector is not relevant both on the ground that no such inspection is mandatory under Rule 3 or under the notification and further that the permission was granted by the District Magistrate on 8.1.2001. The order granting permission by the District Magistrate on 8.1.2001 is also singed by the Asstt. Entertainment Tax Commissioner, Aligarh and the Addl. District Magistrate. Both the Asstt. Entertainment Tax Commissioner and the District Magistrate have clearly put the date 8.1.2001 below their signatures. In the impugned order nothing has been said about date of the permission and as to how the permission could be granted by the District Magistrate on 8.1.2001, if the inspection of the site was made on 17.1.2001. In the enquiry findings was also recorded that there could be no explanation as to how the District Magistrate granted permission on 8.1.2001 on the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, if it was submitted on 17.1.2001. The State Government found everything in order except some overwriting, which did not require any explanation at all as the relevant order is the order of permission and not the order by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
